Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
https://doi.org/10.1108/S1548-643520170000014011
Downloaded on: 14 August 2017, At: 01:36 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 7 times since 2017*
A. Fuat Fırat
ABSTRACT
deeper insights into what price truly means to consumers, this study contri-
butes to a more comprehensive understanding of the concept of price.
Keywords: Price; sacrifice; quality; obtainability; affordability
“price” may be that we know very little about it. This is normal whenever con-
structs are taken for granted in the disciplines we inhabit, and price has had
this predicament. It is one of those concepts that everyone assumes is clearly
understood. We all know what price is; it is the amount of money we have to
sacrifice for something we want to purchase. However, price may or may not
reflect the perceived worth of the object a consumer considers purchasing.
Studies suggest that consumers may hold more than one interpretation of the
concept. These interpretations may coexist, conflict, and subsequently influence
the consumer decision-making process (Leavitt, 1954).
Economic and marketing literature often reaches different conclusions in
terms of how consumers perceive and respond to prices. Neoclassical econo-
mists assume that consumers behave rationally and thereby generally act to
maximize utility. Price is often used as the key determining factor in consumer
purchase decisions. Marketing scholars, on the other hand, address consumer
response to prices without the untenable perfect rationality assumption
(Skouras, Avlonitis, & Indounas, 2005). Borrowing theories from psychology,
marketing researchers have examined consumers’ perceptions of price, such as
price quality relationship, reference price concepts, price fairness, price knowl-
edge, memory, and numerical cognition (Monroe, 2011). These studies regard-
ing perceptions of price relate to a limited set of consumer reactions upon
encountering a specific price. The influence of economic theories of price has
been too strong to critically question what price is. Despite some effort in the
marketing discipline to explore how price impacts on consumer perceptions of
product quality, expensiveness, and fairness, the deeper meanings that it evokes
when consumers think of “price” have gone largely uninvestigated.
The objective of this research is to revisit the meaning of price to consumers
in general, as a part of their multifaceted lives, rather than being limited to only
the reactions they have after they encounter a price. We wish to gain insights
into the meanings of price for consumers, beyond the conventional ones that
economic functions have implicitly assumed in economics. The aim is, thus, to
explore the deeper meanings that price has for people as well as the conven-
tional meanings it carries. This is important for different reasons. One is to
have insights into the contemporary existence of humans for whom living in a
Price: Meanings and Significance 163
Xia, Monroe, & Cox, 2004). It is easier for consumers to perceive unfairness when
they experience an inequitable price transaction, but it is comparatively difficult to
illustrate what “fairness perception” might be (Xia et al., 2004). Literature on
perceived fairness tends to focus largely on unfairness and the negative effect of
perceived unfairness on purchase intentions (Campbell, 1999).
The notion that consumers have perfect information and knowledge about
prices is often challenged by marketing scholars. Studies on price knowledge,
memory, and numerical cognition (Estelami, Lehmann, & Holden, 2001;
Monroe & Lee, 1999) reveal that consumers often inaccurately remember or
recall product prices. Consumers lack knowledge and capacity to fully process
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 01:36 14 August 2017 (PT)
used to start conversations, which were then navigated using different follow-
ups and probes. This is important especially when an explored concept (price,
in this case) has ready-made, common, conventional responses because of its
pervasiveness and presumed obviousness.
Focus groups produced a slate of categories and themes. These initial find-
ings were next expanded through one-on-one, in-depth interviews. The inter-
views were semi-structured. Even though the interviewer followed an interview
schedule containing a list of questions and topics that needed to be covered
during the conversation, s/he pursued topical trajectories in the conversation
that strayed from the guide as deemed appropriate (Rubin & Rubin, 2005).
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 01:36 14 August 2017 (PT)
FINDINGS
The findings produced two sets of meanings of price: conventional meanings
and deeper meanings. While the analytical emphasis was on meanings of price
that are beyond those routinely discussed in extant literature regarding the con-
ventional meanings of price, we did discover some deeper perceptions related to
these conventional meanings, which we present first.
and functionality that emanated from price. Within these meanings, we discov-
ered several nuances not articulated in prior research.
The meanings of price change according to specific circumstances that define
the purchase/consumption act. The effect of the multifaceted notion of context
on price comparisons and meanings has been acknowledged before (see, e.g.,
Berkowitz & Walton, 1980); however, they mostly refer to the context, specifi-
cally the purchase venue, or to elements that are related to the purchase venue.
Personal characteristics are also found to influence the meanings consumers
attribute to or derive from price as well as the extent to which price matters for
consumers.
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 01:36 14 August 2017 (PT)
One interesting finding yielded that despite its utmost significance in many
instances, in yet a considerable number of other instances price was a far less
significant factor. Price “does not matter” (a) when the purchase/consumption
act (and not the price) is the exclusive locus of attention and (b) in some of the
instances where the item is a necessity. First, when the consumer aims to treat a
loved one (e.g., take him or her out to dinner), price wanes in significance. The
focus is not on the cost, expense, or worth of what is being purchased, but
exclusively on the loved one being treated. Ashley (27, male) feels:
You’re not gonna compare prices [when] you’re taking your girlfriend out to eat. You go
wherever she wants and order whatever she wants. This is especially [important] in the early
stages of a relationship. So, I’d say price doesn’t mean anything in that context.
Under such circumstances, price loses significance because the purchase act
tells something about the worth of the loved one to the buyer rather than the
worth or quality of that which is purchased. As such, when an act is significant
because it represents the value attributed to oneself or a loved one, price does
not matter. Note that, normally, the consumer might not engage in the pur-
chase of that item without considering its price (i.e., assigning significance to
the price) or might even forgo purchasing it because of its price. Under special
circumstances, however, the purchase will take place without regard for the
price, and the item might very well be well over-priced. This is a strong indica-
tion that the meaning of price is not simply connected to an item that is pur-
chased, but simultaneously to other dimensions of the occasion within which a
price for an item purchased is paid. That is, linking price to a single item pur-
chased or studying price in just terms of the cost of an item is likely to produce
an incomplete understanding of price.
Second, in some of the instances where the item is a necessity, price may
become less or more significant. As such, necessities are a nuanced case in rela-
tion to price. In some contexts, price matters even more when what is being
purchased is a necessity. Consumers are more mindful of prices of necessities
because they will purchase them regularly. In other contexts, however, price
becomes insignificant because if the consumer needs to have something, he or
she will get it without much consideration of its price and fluctuations therein.
Viviana (22, female) shared:
168 MOHAMMADALI ZOLFAGHARIAN ET AL.
Bread…you have to eat. Gas [price] has been going up for some time, but you still have to
fill up that big-o tank. Makeup…as important as bread. Without bread, you starve; without
makeup, you don’t leave your apartment. So no matter how much you pay, you still have to
get bread AND gas AND makeup AND so forth.
exist, why would we study, why [would] we have a career?” Linking to the
meaning of motivation, price implies “you put more of yourself to find a job or
get an education, have a good life.”
In another context, price provoked the feeling of both having control and
having no control. When price means having control, participants felt prices
allow them to “stay within [their] means,” facilitating a discipline that is pre-
scribed by social forces and internalized and enacted at the individual level.
When price means lack of control, the individual feels as though he or she has
no choice or is not a chooser, developing a feeling of “choicelessness.”
Benjamin (25, male) thinks,
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 01:36 14 August 2017 (PT)
Price is both a good thing, in the sense that it helps people to have social values and a sense
of what is proper; it is also an imposition when controlling myself is not something that
I want, but something that I have to do. Like I work because I have to pay my bills … so
I just have to do it to pay prices for things… that’s life, I have to do it.
Price also means discrimination and exclusion. The existence of prices sug-
gests that there are things that are desirable by a large number of consumers
who will have to compete over owning the priced items. Thus, the fact that
items have prices serves as a boundary dividing owners those who can afford
it from non-owners those who are unable to afford it. In other words,
price means some consumers will not have the right to the product, with right
defined in economic/monetary terms. The sentiment that price means discrimi-
nation and exclusion in favor of the economically endowed groups emerged
when participants adopted a macro view of consumer life. Eric (23, male)
asserts,
I wish things were free but they can’t be. Sometimes we want things because [other] people
don’t have them. This is discrimination and I know of people who see the world this way.
Why can’t a needy step into a bakery and grab a loaf of bread without any worry? Why
should we organize charity the way we do and make money and price the medium of charity?
I guess people just don’t want to oppose it…They are just too busy living in the box.
Related to the latter notions, price was also interpreted as “a culture of scar-
city regulation.” In this sense, price is viewed as a defining agent behind and
within assemblages where various human and non-human entities determine
the constitution of life, at both the individual and the group level. What is
scarce is legitimized and enforced, regulated in the sense that things that would
be scarce for all are no longer scarce for some who can afford their prices but
absolutely scarce for those who cannot. Such acts are possible because assem-
blages of people and things and the dependencies among them can and do influ-
ence customs, norms, values, practices, technologies, and institutions, as well as
the relationships among them. As such, scarcity regulation for/through socio-
economic reasons/means serves as a foundational imperative of contemporary
society that informs the various elements of culture (i.e., customs, norms,
values, practices, technologies, and institutions) and gives purpose to and
orchestrates assemblages conducive to reproducing the imperative.
170 MOHAMMADALI ZOLFAGHARIAN ET AL.
If something was free, everybody would try to get as many units of that something that is
possible. Think of global warming and how fast the planet is running out of clean and cool
air just because it is free. So, thank God there are prices…Other times, I wish nothing would
run out. I wish humanity wouldn’t have to pay a price for every little thing in life.
the privileged, on the other hand, obtaining highly expensive products would
showcase superior socioeconomic status. For such signaling and negotiations
of socioeconomic status to operate effectively, both groups of consumers need
to understand that, at least sometimes, it is not the product per se but the
price the consumer must have paid for it that matters. This is indicated con-
notatively in Ashley’s (27, male) narrative about the meaning of price when
he takes his girlfriend out to dinner:
I’d say price doesn’t mean anything in that context…and even if it does, it’s definitely not in
a monetary sense…A dinner for two that costs more than $150 is not necessarily the most
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 01:36 14 August 2017 (PT)
tasteful or healthiest food; it doesn’t even guarantee that my girlfriend would particularly
enjoy eating it. The thing that I hope she will appreciate is the fact that I am willing to spend
hard-earned money so she knows how much I care for her…I’m sure it comes up later in her
conversations with her (girl)friends when they gossip about guys.
Price also means “to have, as opposed to HAVE-have.” The semantic effect
of HAVE-have as a contrastive reduplication “is to focus the denotation of the
reduplicated element on a more sharply delimited, more specialized, range”
(Ghomeshi, Jackendoff, Rosen, & Russell, 2004, p. 308). As such, HAVE-have,
a slightly sarcastic use as demonstrated in shows like The Big Bang Theory,
denotes the state of having paid for and obtained something, as opposed to
“have,” which stops at knowing the price and resting assured that one could
potentially obtain the product if one desired so. Viviana (22, female) differenti-
ates between “to have” (i.e., having by just knowing the price) and “to HAVE-
have” (i.e., paying the price and taking the product home), alluding to the
possible multiplicity of consumer feelings of ownership and access. She states,
Yes, knowing the price [of something] feels to me like having [that] something. Like, the
other day, my girlfriend sent me a picture of a genuine leather jacket that looked real expen-
sive. I scrolled down and saw the price. I felt no need to buy; I felt I already had it because
the price was right…Of course, there are things I know I won’t ever have, like a Tesla or a
Maserati. With everything else, if I know the price, I feel I already have it even though I
don’t HAVE-have it…This is more than knowing I can afford it. I literally feel I own things
that I like in stores. This feeling actually helps me not run and buy everything I see and like.
Finally, price was understood in connection to the idiom “pay a/the price”
defined as suffering the consequences for doing or risking something. When
this negatively charged idiom contaminates consumer consciousness, price is no
longer perceived simply as a resource the consumer gives up to receive a desired
product. Rather, the existence of price feels like a punishment, a consequence
of giving in to temptations. Kate (67, female) says,
Because price can have so many different meanings than just cost, it also represents some
kind of non-concrete effect that will cost you if you do something, like the price you pay for
not behaving yourself or something like that…It means that it’s a negative, it’s a negative
connotation that you pay a price for something… it’s negative, it’s a negative value in your
life… it means I made a mistake.
172 MOHAMMADALI ZOLFAGHARIAN ET AL.
your league.” This feeling of entitlement compels the consumer to “skip the
affordability check and dive right into taking it home.”
As a result of its multifaceted nature, “price” needs to be studied and
analyzed from several aspects. The present study shows that price goes beyond
the conventional economic meaning and informs and influences consumer
self-perceptions, scarcity, motivation, and the contrary interpretations of
obtainability and affordability. By exploring the deeper meanings of “price,”
we contribute to a broad and comprehensive understanding of the concept of
price in the pricing literature. Managerially, exploring the meanings of price
further could yield productive results. As the implications of price regarding
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 01:36 14 August 2017 (PT)
how consumers feel about themselves are revealed, pricing strategies that yield
greater satisfaction for the consumers can be discovered and implemented.
A more difficult marketing task is to engage the meanings that price has
regarding the socioeconomic order. Yet, for the marketing institution as a
whole to serve society better, the meanings of price related to regulation of
scarcity, motivation, and social values are necessary to understand at length.
Another fruitful avenue for research is to examine the relationship between
affordability and obtainability. Our participants were either concerned with
affordability and altogether blind to the magnitude of price or, instead, focused
on the possibility of owning and using the product immediately. However, it
seems reasonable to expect these two notions to coexist across a variety of con-
sumer decision situations. Moreover, consumers who were focused on obtain-
ability of products portrayed feelings of entitlement and often lacked in
motivation or ability to calculate the total price of products. These findings
have significant marketing and public policy implications. We recommend that
these avenues for research be pursued, first through the use of more exploratory
methods and then through experimental designs once some distinct relation-
ships between meanings of price and consumer behaviors are discovered.
REFERENCES
Arnold, S. J., & Fischer, E. (1994). Hermeneutics and Consumer Research. Journal of Consumer
Research, 21(June), 55 70.
Berkowitz, E. N., & Walton, J. R. (1980). Contextual influences on consumer price responses: An
experimental analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(3), 349 358.
Bolton, L. E., Warlop, L., & Alba, J. W. (2003). Consumer perceptions of price (un)fairness. Journal
of Consumer Research, 29(March), 474 491.
Bornemann, T., & Homburg, C. (2011). Psychological distance and the dual role of price. Journal of
Consumer Research, 38(October), 490 504.
Campbell, M. C. (1999). Why did you do that? The important role of inferred motive in perceptions
of price fairness. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 8(2), 145 153.
Compeau, L. D., Lindsey-Mullikin, J., Grewal, D., & Petty, R. D. (2004). Consumers’ interpreta-
tions of the semantic phrases found in reference price advertisements. Journal of Consumer
Affairs, 38(June), 178 187.
174 MOHAMMADALI ZOLFAGHARIAN ET AL.
Damay, C. (2008). What is the meaning of “price” and “being expensive” for children. Young
Consumers, 9(June), 179 188.
Dodds, W. B., Monroe, K. B., & Grewal, D. (1991). Effects of price, brand, and store information
on buyers’ product evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(August), 307 319.
Estelami, H., Lehmann, D. R., & Holden, A. C. (2001). Macro-economic determinants of consumer
price knowledge: A meta-analysis of four decades of research. International Journal of
Research in Marketing, 18(December), 341 355.
Fern, E. F. (1982). The use of focus groups for idea generation: The effects of group size, acquain-
tanceship, and moderator on response quantity and quality. Journal of Marketing Research,
19(February), 1 13.
Ghomeshi, J., Jackendoff, R., Rosen, N., & Russell, K. (2004). Contrastive focus reduplication in
English (the salad-salad paper). Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 22(May), 307 357.
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 01:36 14 August 2017 (PT)
Gijsbrechts, E., Campo, K., & Goossens, T. (2003). the impact of store flyers on store traffic and
store sales: A geo-marketing approach. Journal of Retailing, 79(April), 1 16.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk.
Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 47(March), 263 291.
Krishna, A., Briesch, R., Lehmann, D. R., & Yuan, H. (2002). A meta-analysis of the impact of
price presentation on perceived savings. Journal of Retailing, 78(August), 101 118.
Leavitt, H. J. (1954). A note on some experimental findings about the meanings of price. The
Journal of Business, 27(July), 205 210.
Lichtenstein, D. R., Ridgway, N. M., & Netemeyer, R. G. (1993). Price perceptions and consumer
shopping behavior: A field study. Journal of Marketing Research, 30(May), 234 245.
Mazumdar, T., & Papatla, P. (1995). Gender difference in price and promotion response. Pricing
Strategy & Practice, 3(1), 21 34.
Monroe, K. B. (1971). The information content of prices: A preliminary model for estimating buyer
response. Management Science, 17(April), B-519 B-532.
Monroe, K. B. (2011). Legends in Marketing Kent B. Monroe. J. N. Sheth (Ed.), Vol. 1-7, Sage
Publications.
Monroe, K. B., & Lee, A. Y. (1999). Remembering versus knowing: Issues in buyers’ processing of
price information. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(Spring), 207 225.
Morris, M. H., & Morris, G. (1990). Market-oriented pricing. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Nagle, T. T., & Hogan, J. E. (1995). The strategy and tactics of pricing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Parker, A., & Tritter, J. (2006). Focus group method and methodology: Current practice and recent
debate. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 29(February), 23 37.
Rao, A. R., & Monroe, K. B. (1989). The effect of price, brand name, and store name on buyers’
perceptions of product quality: An integrative review. Journal of Marketing Research,
26(August), 351 357.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2005). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. (1992). Choice in context: Tradeoff contrast and extremeness aversion.
Journal of Marketing Research, 29(August), 281 295.
Skouras, T., Avlonitis, G. J., & Indounas, K. A. (2005). Economics and marketing on pricing: How
and why do they differ. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 14(6), 362 374.
Suri, R., Anderson, R. E., & Kotlov, V. (2004). The use of 9-ending prices: Contrasting the USA
with Poland. European Journal of Marketing, 38(1 2), 56 72.
Williams, T. G. (2002). Social class influences on purchase evaluation criteria. Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 19(3), 249 276.
Xia, L., Monroe, K. B., & Cox, J. L. (2004). The price is unfair! A conceptual framework of price
fairness perceptions. Journal of Marketing, 68(October), 1 15.